More MA "Gun Control"

[Riverside]

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/politics/view.bg?articleid=1039275

It sounds like Deval wants to push forward with this ridiculous legislation. What is needed is more "Criminal Control".
Best Regards.

 

[Twigg]

What is needed is more "Criminal Control".
Best Regards.

But, criminal control would be considered oppressive !

Better to further restrict our rights as defined by the Constitution.

Not many seem to mind in this Socialist hell hole.

 

[Bruce for NH State Rep]

I wrote this last December, but the sentiment is timeless:

First, the law-abiding gun owners in this country were told by our elected officials that they needed to impose background checks at the point of purchase of firearms. This would supposedly provide the "balance" we needed between prohibiting criminals from obtaining guns and respecting the rights of the law-abiding populace.

Oops...turns out criminals could still get their hands on pretty much any kind of gun they wanted.

So, we here in the Bay State were presented with the concept of firearms licensing to ensure that only law-abiding people were able to purchase and possess firearms in the Commonwealth.

Turns out the criminals among us weren't to keen to play by that set of rules, either.

Then we got an upswing in gang violence in the 90's in the City of Boston, which did wonders to disprove the effectiveness of these fabulous gun laws, which were all enacted on the "promise" that they would help lower the violent crime rate, mainly in our inner-cities where the use and trafficking of narcotics had been most responsible for feeding the fires of gang violence.

But our "leaders" remained a bunch of arrogant, totalitarian pricks with their heads lodged up their backsides less than convinced. So, we were told in 1998 that we needed to tighten further the restrictions on obtaining a license to own a firearm. You know, in the interest of striking that "balance" between prohibiting criminals from obtaining guns and respecting the rights of the law-abiding populace.

Detecting a pattern yet?

One of the first felt results of the Gun Control Act of 1998 was a considerable drop in the number of licensed gun owners in the Commonwealth. Any guesses what happened to the rate of assault-related injuries by firearm? Hint: It went up. Quel surprise!

Then we had our courageous Attorneys General Harshbarger and Reilly impose a series of "consumer safety" regulations, designed with but one goal in mind - to discourage gun makers from selling their products to properly-licensed individuals in Massachusetts.

You know, just one more "common sense" compromise between the people who understand and respect the Bill of Rights and our politicians who want to extract every ounce of personal responsibility and empowerment from the electorate that they possibly can.

Needless to say, these regulations seemed to bear no weight with the hundreds (OK, I'm lowballing it) of armed teenagers walking the streets of Dorchester, Roxbury, New Bedford, Lynn, etc., who continued arming themselves with piece-of-shit Jennings/Bryco/Lorcin .25-caliber pocket pistols and the like.

We clearly needed more "balance".

So, Jarrett Barrios and his friends saw to it that Massachusetts gun owners could no longer purchase guns that look like assault rifles, but function no differently than many common hunting rifles, you know, the kind that John Kerry has supposedly promised us are "OK" to own.

So, this so-called "assault weapons" ban was made law in Massachusetts, despite the fact that the federal legislation on which it is based, has come and gone with no measurable effect on the nation's violent crime rate.

Now, one would think, based on the rhetoric of the gun control lobby and their allies in the state legislature, that we'd have wiped violent crime off the map by now. Every piece of gun control signed into law has been foisted upon us as a knee-jerk, reactionary measure, designed to convince the voters that our leaders are doing something to keep the streets safe.

Well, after the powder residue and lead dust had settled at the end of 2005, city leaders in Boston found themselves with a 10-year-high homicide rate.

"Bridge to Control Room...MORE BALANCE!"

So, we got, among other things, Mayor Menino's dog and pony show of a gun buyback program that was launched with a flurry of photo ops and press releases, telling us how it would bring about a reduction in the rate of gun-related violence among our inner-city youths.

Any guesses as to how well that's worked?

All the while, we've had politicians from across the state proposing such brilliant ideas as...

- Mandatory GPS tracking devices installed in all new handguns sold in Massachusetts.
- Mandatory "microstamping" technology on all new handguns sold in Massachusetts.
- A statewide ban on BB guns and realistic looking toy guns.
- A 30-day waiting periods for the purchase of handguns (as if making someone wait 106 days for a gun permit isn't providing that individual with an ample "cool-down" period).
- One-gun-a-month laws - except for gang members.
- Mandatory liability insurance ($250,000 coverage) for all licensed gun owners - again, crack dealers and the lowlife scumbags responsible for the rise in gun-related violence in our cities need not apply.

With every failed measure of gun control they implement, we see a violent crime rate that continues to fluctuate independently of any such legislation rammed down our throats by those who "know what's best for us".

Yet, we're told to this day that still more restrictions and tighter regulations are needed to "close the loopholes", and obtain that long sought-after "balance".

It's nothing more than an unchecked cycle of feel-good, do nothing liberalism [aka: totalitarianism] with only one "logical" conclusion.

"Turn 'em in!"

 

[Snapshot]

You guys are going about it all wrong. You can't apply that type of logic to what they are doing.

They are listening to the squeaky wheels within their own circles. In order to get them to pay attention to you, you have to get in to their circle. In order to do that, you have to make them like you.

In order to do that... you need to give them money.

I do business with a company that has no official ties to politics at all... yet politicians are always visiting and listening to them. Why? They have money and they give it out… big time.

I have quite a bit more to say about this but I’ll do it later.

 

[9000S]

hmmmm

The bill, filed in April, would limit gun buyers to one firearm purchase a month, increase penalties for possessing a gun near a school or park and create a legal presumption that defendants charged with gun crimes should be held without bail until their trials.

The proposal has been heard by a legislative committee, but it has not been forwarded for a vote.

Egad!! This is messed up I missed the first part... I kinda liked the held without bail part. Then thought if I am carrying somewhere and the wallet is in the car... and I get stopped and "caught" with my firearm, I wonder if the officer would allow me to produce it.... eeks. Or if i would just be tossed in jail for months on a phony charge.... police state anyone?

 

[jcr]

increase penalties for possessing a gun near a ... park

I've been focused on MA gun law since before the 1998 mess. I don't have any recollection regarding gun restrictions in (or near) parks for those who are licensed.

Have I missed something?

Or is this only an enhancer for already illegal activity?

 

[Big_Red]

Burke was referring to the killing of 13-year-old Steven Odom, who was hit by a stray bullet in Dorchester while walking home from playing basketball with his friends.

Somehow I doubt that he was killed by a law abiding gun carrier. More senseless knee jerk feel-good laws that will accomplish absolutely nothing. God, I hate this f-ing state.

 

[WayneWong]

You guys are going about it all wrong. You can't apply that type of logic to what they are doing.

They are listening to the squeaky wheels within their own circles. In order to get them to pay attention to you, you have to get in to their circle. In order to do that, you have to make them like you.

In order to do that... you need to give them money.

I do business with a company that has no official ties to politics at all... yet politicians are always visiting and listening to them. Why? They have money and they give it out… big time.

I have quite a bit more to say about this but I’ll do it later.

Absolutely true. After all, we have the best government money can buy.

 

[brass spitter]

My God, I'm shocked ... so shocked!

You mean the gangbangers don't have A/ALP licenses, and didn't even bother to apply?

Gee, I guess the governor and the AG don't know this yet. I gotta rush right up Becon Hill and warn them!

 

[Garys]

The politicians in MA have to be some of the stupidest people that have ever existed on this planet. They keep doing the same thing over and over and over and the results are always the same.

You could apply this to most of the VOTERS too. I hear people bitch and bitch and bitch about politicians, but they vote the same Democrats in time after time.

Gary

 

[lemonlime571]

The polititians know EXACTLY what they are doing. Unfortunatly they feel that an unarmed population will be easier to control. This isn't paranoia, it's reality.

 

[Kar98 Sniper]

Held without bail for exercising a RIGHT.

 

[ramx50]

The polititians know EXACTLY what they are doing. Unfortunatly they feel that an unarmed population will be easier to control. This isn't paranoia, it's reality.

+1

I wonder how they will UN arm the gang bangers and everyone else who commit crimes with illegally held guns?

I wounder how they will stop someone from say NY,ME,NH,VT,RI,CT or any other state from just driving across into MA with guns o sell to the gang bangers and others????????

 

[jcr]

We all know that anti-gunners keep an extensive list of the next gun-control laws they want to pass. They keep it at the ready, and push whatever seems expedient at the time.

One-gun-a-month (OGAM) has been near the top of the list for years, and has passed in a couple places. It is attractive to gun grabbers for two reasons.

First is that there is no effective retort (for the common voter) to the challenge that, "Nobody needs more than 12 guns a year." There are lots of reponses ("need?", slippery slope [how about one per year]), but to the typical citizen this does seem like "reasonable gun control".

Secondly, and this is the main reason that professional grabbers want it, is that OGAM can only be implemented with registration. The only way the goverment can know if you've bought a gun this month is if they record in their database that you have done that. The grabbers know that registration is always opposed, so they work the OGAM law to get the backdoor registration.

And that is folly of trying to pass OGAM in Massachusetts. Sadly, we already have registration. Our politicians are too lame to even understand their own playbook. Certainly, they don't need a symbolic victory to ring up so they can get re-elected -- they get re-elected regardless of what they do.

Finally (sorry for the long post), that we already have this registration, is a method that we can use to push this back. It would not take much of a database query to get a report out of the CHSB to determine exactly how many purchases have been made in the last 10 years that would have been blocked by OGAM.

They have the data. Who is making these multiple gun purchases, and selling on the street? Just look it up! Of course, the few that do happen are completely on the up-and-up.
'
More importantly, the ones (any) that are for nefarious purposes are never in the database -- and would not be blocked by OGAM, anyway.

 

[Gabe]

...Unfortunatly they feel that an unarmed population will be easier to control....

I agree with them.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Joe, remember it's "one gun a month" OR "one mag per month"! You don't get both! Therefore, it does serve a purpose for the gun-grabbers.

 

[Len-2A Training]

I've been focused on MA gun law since before the 1998 mess. I don't have any recollection regarding gun restrictions in (or near) parks for those who are licensed.

Have I missed something?

Or is this only an enhancer for already illegal activity?

Joe, no you weren't asleep.

At least as of now, there is no law against a LTC-A/ALP holder carrying near a park. Guess they want to restrict where we can carry as well . . . they can impose whatever restrictions they like and the sheeple will consider it "reasonable".

 

[LoginName]

Secondly, and this is the main reason that professional grabbers want it, is that OGAM can only be implemented with registration. The only way the goverment can know if you've bought a gun this month is if they record in their database that you have done that. The grabbers know that registration is always opposed, so they work the OGAM law to get the backdoor registration.

Of course those actually causing the problems would obey the law by using the "honor system".

 

[drgrant]

You guys are going about it all wrong. You can't apply that type of logic to what they are doing.

They are listening to the squeaky wheels within their own circles. In order to get them to pay attention to you, you have to get in to their circle. In order to do that, you have to make them like you.

In order to do that... you need to give them money.

In MA the issue is not an economic one, despite the fact
that one could easily argue that loosening MA gun laws
would be at least a small monetary windfall for state and
local coffers, because more people would buy guns, pay
taxes on them and accessories, and it would justify more
gun stores which would also pay taxes, etc.

The problem in MA is that the pols actually -believe- this
shit they're writing into law- this isn't about "misguided" politicians
sponsoring something they just happen to think "sounds good".
These people KNOW exactly what they're pushing; their end game
is to ban civilian ownership of firearms; it's simple incrementalist
policy. It has nothing to do with economics and everything
to do with far-left socialist idealism. In other states pols are
sometimes persuaded to actually look at the pro-gun side of
the story, in MA that isn't true 9 out of 10 times. The people
writing the gun laws in MA are always full out, anti-gun to the
core, moonbats.

The core of the problem in MA is that an anti gun vote is
virtually "free" of political cost. Given, that point it
then all boils down to what the individual pols personal
feelings are.

I understand what your point is, though.... problem is soft
corruption likely doesn't work as well for the gun lobby. The
problem with stopping gun laws is it's not like a one-off type of deal
like greasing some hacks to speed up some building permits, or any
of the usual hack type activities. It's a long term problem that
needs a long term solution.

-Mike

 

[JimB]

sure

OGAM will surely do it. Gangbangers don't play by the same rules.

I realize there are a lot of anti's out there, but its my guess
that the Governor is aimlessly responding to a situation to which
he has no CLUE how to solve... Those that are victims of
shootings may feel better for a short while until the next
shooting.

The gangbangers must be laughing their asses off at the stupidity
of the anti's and our politicians...


Jim

 

[kevin9]

I realize there are a lot of anti's out there, but its my guess
that the Governor is aimlessly responding to a situation to which
he has no CLUE how to solve...

Cadillac Free-em-all Deval has been a member of the OGAM club long before he was elected. This proposal was part of his campaign platform and his core constituency ate it like cake. Based on this I don't believe that he is "aimlessly responding to a situation". I believe he is using a tragic situation to further his own, long-held goals. Scum.